Eduard,
They have to try to prove god exists, because the default position is non belief. Otherwise we would believe in unicorns, square circles etc until someone prove they didn’t. That is insanity. In addition we already know religion is bankrupt in the proof department because even its followers refer to it as a “faith.”
Yeah, I’m aware that proving God’s existance is irresistible for them. However, once they try to prove God’s existence with rational means, which they then reject in order to refute contradictory evidence, they’re falling into an obvious self-serving bias.
I think the best approach for believers would be to give the same credit to atheists as they give to followers of other religions. That is, they should accept the slight chance that the details they emphasize might be wrong and that their belief is somewhat based on tradition, rather than fully self-observed evidence.
They should also be aware of the fact that a benevolent God could not possibly punish non-believers if the same God does not provide sufficient evidence.
Actually you need to prove this assertion. I know it logically follows that belief in god(s) is something imposed upon people by society, but it’s the normal trend for societies to start off with some form of mythism. Whether we are hardwired to believe in something larger than our selves, or if the god concept is just a handy interface with the numinous which evolves into a structured personification is unproven. I am an atheist but I must concede that belief in god(s) is the norm. You would have to conduct studies to establish whether or not plopping a person in an isolated environment will develop some form of god belief.
Unicorns are an interesting case, the belief in their existence is common in both Europe and Asia. This would suggest that there is a real origin to the the common legend. An oryx viewed from the side looks like it only has one horn, one horned deer are not unheard of though a centered horn is. In the 1980s Ringling Brothers Barnum and Bailey Circus bought 4 unicorns, or rather goats who had their horns altered. I don’t presume to know the origin of unicorns but when you have several cultures develop the myth independently of each other, you have to wonder.
I’ll just do a proof by example since that will probably help the most. Assume that the default position is belief as you assert and now lets make a small list of the things you believe in shall we?
Mata Nui the Great Spirit, The Great Beings, Aldur, Belar, Chaldan, Eriond, Issa, Mara, Nedra, Torak UL, Jasmine, Olaf the Troll God, Illyria, Dinza, Barbas, Gideon, Zankou, Gan, Tak, Maturin, Ares, Hercules, Rao, Ra, Vext, Ominar Synn, Yggdrasil, Zhuqiaomon, Azulongmon, Ebonwumon, Baihumon, Fanglongmon, Lucemon, Seraphimon, Ophanimon, Cherubimon, Alphamon, Dexmon, Apocalymon, Susanoonmon, Cra, Ecaflip, Eniripsa, Feca, lop, Osamodas, Sacrier, Sadida, Sram Xelor…
Do I need to go one? I put some digimon in there because I used to like that show 
The only question I have for you is why are you providing evidence for the unicorns existence? You don’t need to by default everyone believes in unicorns, it is me that has to supply evidence right? Wrong.
I didn’t provide evidence that unicorns exist. There is no evidence that unicorns exist. However the fact that so many cultures have myths about unicorns, a few developing them independent of others, suggests that the legend of the unicorn may have had roots in reality. Perhaps an oryx viewed from the side for example which looks remarkably like a one horned animal.
As for the gods and fictional characters you spoke of, all you established is that it’s normal for cultures to develop mythologies. Shock. Whether atheism is the default position or not is not proven. In order to prove you would need to do some experiments, like taking a child, or a group of children, and have them grow up without any other people around. I’ll have to dig up my psych books on the subject, but those rare cases where kids have been isolated, at least one I remember (though I can’t site the source) developed belief in god(s) or at least had some interface with the numinous.
Look, I am an atheist, god(s) have no meaning in my life, but I have to be intellectually honest. Given your list, the evidence would suggest that developing god(s) is the norm.
I guess the only thing that will work is if I pick apart your argument for you. So your argument is this, if I understand correctly: “Most people develop mythologies, therefore belief is the default position, qed.” Wrong, let me demonstrate by another example. A Christian, is his default position belief? Nope its not, its disbelief. He disbelieves in alllllllllllll other deities EXCEPT the one he was led to believe in. What about zeus? Nope doesn’t believe in that, why? Is it because his default position is belief but he has managed to prove that Zeus doesn’t exist? No, there is no way to prove that Zeus doesn’t exist so this cannot be the reason. The reason is because his default position is disbelief. Does he believe in many gods? does he believe in square circles? Nope none of those and why not? Well I’m sure you can guess why by now.
You are not without hope though. You have correctly observed that most people pick and choose what they believe in at random with no basis in reality or logic and disbelieve in all the rest. And I agree with you, they are absolutely off the wall crazy, inconsistent, and immoral.
Really? We’re all born knowing something about a deity?
Nope, we’re not. That’s why the default is non-belief: god-belief is taught or “created”, but not innate.
FAIL
Humans develop language. English is a language. Does everyone speak English? No? Language does not exist. Sound silly? That’s your logic.
Disbelief in Christianity requires exposure that particular system of belief, and as such can not be the default position. A default position without knowledge of any specific methodology is apathy, or even agnosticism.
What are you feelings toward Bob the painter? You don’t know him? He paints houses. If I were to say everyone likes Bob, that would be logically incorrect since everyone doesn’t like Bob. But is the default position toward Bob dislike? No, that’s just as logically invalid. Most people don’t know Bob the painter, and as such are quite apathetic toward Bob. They don’t know he exists, nor do they care.
Given the vast number of mythologies that have cropped up, it would seem that some form of mythology, as in, some personification of the natural environment and it interacts with the individual, some basic metaphor providing an interface with the numinous, is the norm and not the exception. Whether belief in god(s) is the default conclusion or not has not be studied as it would require plopping children outside society and see what they come up with on their own. This is dfficult to do, but does happen with children from time to time.
Language is created, but the ability to create language would appear to be innate.
If belief in god(s) isn’t the normal default conclusion one tends to reach, explain how the vast majority of societies that existed through the history of humanity have developed some form of mythology or another. Zeus, Odin, Ra, all very different characters, but all in their own right, gods.
Belief in a particular god is taught, absolutely. But without exposure to prior god(s), or without influence from society in general, what studies to you have that suggest that the default conclusion is non-belief in any sort of metaphysical entity, like a god.
I’m not saying it’s the default conclusion, frankly I don’t know. But I don’t pretend to know either.
But of you are going to be making the claim, you’re going to need to back it up. It’s an interesting question, what is the reason societies tend to develop religions and gods.
I don’t have to, as that’s not germane. You’ve yet to show that we are born believing in some deity. In fact, no one has yet shown that. So until such time, the default is non-belief.
I read an article a while back that claimed that humanity was down to 6,000 people, or something like that—too lazy to look it up, comprised of two separate groups.
Now, all it would take was for one person out of that small number to invent ‘god’ and pass it down throughout the ages for a default social view of belief in an entity to develop and not that societies invent deities independent of each other as you are proposing.
Even the ‘hardwired brain’ theory could be accounted for through this if there were some benefit in ‘belief’ that helped people survive like maybe it helped them live within a society better than a non-hardwired person.
I don’t have to show that we are born believing in a specific deity. WE ARE NOT BORN WITH LANGUAGE, and as such, couldn’t point to a particular model and say “I believe the universe hatched from a cosmic egg launched from that chicken bum”. It’s impressive enough when a child figures out that you can still see him when he has his eyes closed.
But let’s play this out. How do you know we are not hardwired to believe in some form of metaphysical rhyme and reason to the world? It would seem that the norm, without exposure to science or prior understanding, would be to personify the world around us to better relate to it. For example personifying a seasonal storm. Storm gods certainly common place.
Which has what, pray tell, to do with the veracity of the position that a god exists? One is absolved of the ontological burden of proof because of mass lunacy? No, not really.
-Jon
Is God real or a mirage? I’m not so sure this is the important question.
It promises universal peace, joy and love but somehow it smells like a ploy to rob us of what is most essential. All God (and indirectly religion) asks is that we surrender the self, the source of all pain… but what if the pain is our true salvation? Maybe we need it…
Because not all of us believe it. Pf by counterexample.
No, but we are born with the ability to learn language. We are also born with imagination enough to believe in imaginary things.
Which is irrelvent in the grand scheme of things.
My dog is hardwired to follow the pack social order. So what?
Still the vast majority of people on the planet follow some form of religious or crypto religious belief. Why is that?
Who knows? There are many hypotheses trying to explicate it. But what does it have to do with the truth of the position that there’s a god?
-Jon
I don’t care if god(s) exist. God(s) don’t interact with me, and as such they have no meaning in my life.
My concern is the assertion that belief in god(s) is default conclusion one reaches when one actually has reasonable cognitive skills to formulate an option on the subject, let alone formulate the very idea. Just as you would expect the burden of proof to be on those who propose the existence of god(s), the burden of proof is on those who claim belief in god(s) is not the default conclusion. I don’t know if this is true, or if it isn’t true. I would submit that the default conclusion is actually bullshit, as in some seemingly plausible explanation to how the world works. Given most societies at one point formed some form of mythology, there is alot of weight to the idea that people believe in bullshit by default.
Are you confusing the fact that most people believe in a god (which is what you mean by default) with what is the default belief in terms of logical argumentation? Because it’d seem so.
-Jon